Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2016, 11.

1(S)

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice

EBL 101

Research Methods: Content Analysis

Virginia Wilson
Liaison Librarian
Murray Library
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Email: virginia.wilson@usask.ca

Originally published in:

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(4), 177–179.
https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/12180/13124

Received: 27 Oct. 2011 Accepted: 27 Oct. 2011

2016 Wilson. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons-Attribution-
Noncommercial-Share Alike License 4.0 International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same
or similar license to this one.

Content analysis, a method which can be used
qualitatively or quantitatively for systematically
analyzing written, verbal, or visual
documentation, goes back to the 1950s and the
study of mass communication (White & Marsh,
2006, p. 22). Key themes emerge from the
documents after they are classified and coded.
The content can come from a wide variety of
sources: books, manuscripts, drawings,
photographs, recorded conversations,
videotaped events, messages on electronic
mailings lists and online forums, blog posts, etc.
Content is analyzed by breaking it up into
conceptual chunks that are then coded or
named. Qualitative analysis develops the
categories as the analysis takes place. The results
are used to make inferences about the messages
in the text. Quantitative analysis starts with a
hypothesis and a predetermined coding scheme
that is designed to test the hypothesis. The
results are described using statistics. Kimberly
Neuendorf and Klaus Krippendorff are two of
many contemporary scholars in the area of
content analysis. Neuendorf sees the method as
primarily quantitative, while Krippendorf
believes that counting is not a prerequisite of
content analysis. Verbal categories and the
listing of quotes are considered as valid as
numbers and counting.

41
 Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2016, 11.1(S)
There are two types of content analysis:
conceptual analysis and relational analysis.
Conceptual analysis is largely what was
described above: the content is coded for certain
words, concepts, or themes, and the analyst
makes inferences based on the patterns that
emerge. Relational analysis builds on conceptual
analysis by delving into the relationships
between the concepts and themes that surface
from the analyzed text. Relational analysis is
popular because of its flexibility, but this
flexibility can also be a drawback when
reliability and trustworthiness are necessary in
the research. When the analysis is too flexible,
the research becomes impossible to replicate.
Therefore, a codebook, a coding form, rules, and
often more than one coder are necessary to give
stability to the content analysis process.
Content analysis is a method commonly used in
the social sciences and is therefore a viable
choice for LIS research. In fact, there are many
published LIS research studies that have used
the content analysis methodology. I have
selected a few as an illustration:
Dahl, C. (2001). Electronic pathfinders in
academic libraries: An analysis of their
content and form. College& Research
Libraries, 62(3), 227-237.
Du, Y., Stein, B., & Martin, R.S. (2007) Content
analysis of an LIS job database: A
regional prototype for a collaborative
model. Libri, 57, 17-26. Retrieved from
http://www.librijournal.org/pdf/2007-
1pp17-26.pdf
Julien, H., McKechnie, L. & Hart, S. (2004). A
content analysis of affective issues in
library and information science systems
work [Summary of a research note
delivered at the ISIC 2004 conference,
Dublin, 1-3 September, 2004],
Information Research, 10(1). Retrieved
from http://InformationR.net/ir/10-
1/abs6
Koufogiannakis, D., Slater, L., & Crumley, E.
(2004). A content analysis of librarian
research. Journal of Information Science,
30(3), 227-239. doi:
10.1177/0165551504044668
Morais, Y., & Sampson, S. (2010). A content
analysis of chat transcripts in the
Georgetown Law Library. Legal Reference
Services, 29(3), 165-178.
Yontar, A., & Yalvac, M. (2000). Problems of
library and information science research
in Turkey: A content analysis of journal
articles 1952-1994. IFLA Journal 26(1), 39-
51.
The basic steps a researcher takes in
approaching a content analysis is as follows:
1. Develop a research question (if using
qualitative analysis) or a hypothesis (if
using quantitative analysis).
2. Define the population. This step can
take place at several places during the
course of the study: at the research
question development state or later in
the process depending on what is
returned from choosing a particular
population. Then there are different
methods of choosing a sample: random
sampling methods (simple random
sampling, systematic random sampling,
cluster sampling, stratified sampling)
and non-random sampling (purposive
sampling, convenience sampling).
3. Select a research design. There are
several tasks to be accomplished in this
step: choose units of analysis to study;
create a coding scheme; and, in the case
of quantitative analysis, develop a
numbering system.
4. Gather data: Quality control is a major
concern when coding. Agreement tests
must be conducted between coders to
insure acceptable levels of inter-coder
reliability. The researcher must try to
42
 Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2016, 11.1(S)

avoid subjectivity and the appearance of References

subjectivity.
5. Interpreting the evidence: Findings Beck, S.E., & Manuel, K. (2004). Practical research
must directly address the research methods for librarians and information
question or hypothesis. Tables, bar professionals. New York: Neal-Schuman.
graphs, numbers, etc., all must be
explained and interpreted in light of the White, M.D., & Marsh, E.E. (2006). Content
question asked. (Adapted from Beck & analysis: A flexible methodology. Library
Manuel, 2004, Chapter 3) Trends 55(1), 22-45 doi:
10.1353/lib.2006.0053
In practice, content analysis can be “time-
consuming and labour-intensive” (Beck &
Manuel, 2004, p. 37). Using this research method
can help to reveal trends and themes, but it
cannot attribute cause. However, it is one of the
top research methods used in LIS research, and
can be just the thing when an analysis of
multiple texts is required. Coming up in the next
issue, a look at using focus groups.

Works Consulted

Course content page from the University of

Texas School of Information. Retrieved
from
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~palmqu
is/courses/content.html

Hsieh, H-F., & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three

approaches to qualitative content
analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15,
1277-1288, doi:
10.1177/1049732305276687

Recommended Reading

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An

introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis

guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

White, M.D., & Marsh, E.E. (2006). Content

analysis: A flexible methodology. Library
Trends, 55(1), 22-45, doi:
10.1353/lib.2006.0053

43